Quelle est la réelle raison d'être de la loi 21? (What Is the True Purpose of Quebec's Bill 21?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le present article presente deux perspectives fort differentes sur la loi 21. La premiere, qui a caracterise le debat public a ce jour, consiste a analyser la loi comme vehicule et catalyseur de changement social, alors que la seconde analyse le contexte sociohistorique qui a probablement mene les Quebecois a accorder une forte importance a la laicite de l’Etat. La seconde perspective permet a l’auteur de redefinir le debat relatif a la loi 21. Celui-ci conclut que la seconde perspective depeint la loi 21 comme un acte symbolique, une facon pour les Quebecois de se liberer des chaines d’un passe asphyxiant et d’affirmer constitutivement leur identite. Dans la mesure ou l’on accepte cette conclusion, l’enjeu quant a l’efficacite de la loi 21 comme vehicule de changement social perd presque toute son importance. English Abstract: This paper explores two contrasting perspectives on Bill 21, Quebec’s secularism law: the first, which has dominated the public debate, analyses whether Bill 21 is a suitable method to achieve its main stated aim of promoting the equality of men and women, while the second analyses the social and historical context which likely caused Quebecers to afford great importance to state secularism. The second perspective helps recast the debate regarding Bill 21. This paper concludes that the second perspective suggests that Bill 21 may be a symbolic act, a way for Quebecers to further break free from an oppressive legacy and constitutively assert their identity. To the extent that one accepts this claim, the issue of whether Bill 21 achieves its main stated aim is of little importance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".